If there is a dispute between China 17th Metallurgical Group Co., Ltd.
According to Article 4 of the arbitration law, if the parties resolve their disputes by arbitration, they shall reach an arbitration agreement voluntarily.
and demanded to bear the payment liability within the scope of unpaid project funds, which is in line with the provisions of the law and the gist of the judgment of the Supreme People’s court.
is an illegal subcontractor.
and all documents constituting the contract”, Therefore, it is presumed that the agreement on the jurisdiction clause between China 17th Metallurgical Construction Group Co., Ltd.
The Anhui Provincial High Court held that Article 17 of the internal construction contract responsibility letter is the agreement between Jiang Yuguo and Nanchang Construction Engineering Group Co., Ltd.
According to the provisions of this article and the spirit of the judgment determined by the civil ruling (2014) minshen Zi No.
According to the spirit of judgment determined in the civil ruling (2015) minshen Zi No.
Request: cancel the civil ruling (2020) Wan 13 min Chu No.
2.
According to the relevant provisions of the interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on legal issues applicable to the trial of construction contract dispute cases of construction projects, if the actual construction contractor sues with the subcontractor and illegal subcontractor as the defendant, the people’s court shall accept it according to law.
Jiang Yuguo is the actual constructor of the project.
Therefore, as the actual constructor of the project, Jiang Yuguo claimed rights to China 17th Metallurgical Construction Group Co., Ltd.
2.
In the absence of an arbitration agreement, if one party applies for arbitration, the Arbitration Commission shall not accept it.
346 of Suzhou intermediate people’s Court of Anhui Province, and instruct Suzhou intermediate people’s court to continue hearing the case according to law, and the appeal expenses of the case shall be borne by the appellee.
According to the provisions of this article, the terms of the arbitration agreement shall be the acts between the parties, and shall be an explicit agreement to agree to accept the arbitration jurisdiction, which shall be valid only for both parties.
1.
In essence, the court of first instance identified the litigation rights of the actual construction contractor as subrogation litigation or creditor’s right transfer, which is obviously contrary to the nature of the judicial interpretation giving the actual construction contractor the right to break through the relativity of the contract and the gist of the judgment of the Supreme People’s court.
Jiang Yuguo has not signed any agreement with China 17th Metallurgical Group Co., Ltd.
346 of the intermediate people’s Court of Suzhou City, Anhui Province because of the dispute over the construction contract with the appellee Nanchang Construction Engineering Group Co., Ltd., the appellee China 17th Metallurgical Construction Group Co., Ltd., and the appellee Si county MCC Construction Investment Co., Ltd, Anhui Higher People’s court appealed.
and has not reached any arbitration clause.
3.
Bearing responsibility within the amount of project price owed to the contractor is not a definition of the scope of rights of the actual constructor, nor is it a restriction on the procedural litigation rights of the actual constructor.
3268 of the Supreme People’s court, and in accordance with the principle of fairness, the subcontractor and illegal subcontractor shall judge the illegal subcontractor and illegal subcontractor according to the provisions on the employer’s responsibility in Article 26 of the judicial interpretation The subcontractor shall be liable to the actual constructor within the scope of unpaid project price.
The appellant claims that the court of first instance did not conduct a comprehensive review of the legal relationship of the case, resulting in errors in the application of the law and the determination of the facts.
The court of first instance agreed in the subcontract signed between Jiang Yuguo and Nanchang Construction Engineering Group Co., Ltd.
1575 of the Supreme People’s court, the actual constructor can claim rights from relevant parties who have no contractual relationship with him under certain conditions.
The actual constructor’s right to break through the contract relativity litigation is a legal right, and its nature is not equivalent to the litigation of subrogation.
II.
Therefore, as the actual constructor of the project, Jiang Yuguo initiated a lawsuit against the employer, illegal subcontractor and subcontractor, which is in line with the law.
If the actual constructor claims the rights with the employer as the defendant, the people’s court may add a subcontractor or illegal subcontractor as the party to the case, and the employer shall be liable to the actual constructor only to the extent of the unpaid project price.
In this case, the actual constructor Jiang Yuguo filed a lawsuit against China 17th Metallurgical Group Co., Ltd.
The appellant Jiang Yuguo refused to accept the civil ruling (2020) Wan 13 min Chu No.
At the same time, the claim of rights from the actual constructor cannot be simply understood as the inheritance of the Contractor’s rights.
The Suzhou intermediate people’s Court of the case has jurisdiction according to law.
Of course, it is not bound by the arbitration clause between the contractor and the employer.
and Nanchang Construction Engineering Group Co., Ltd.
is an illegal subcontractor of the project.
1.
is applicable to Jiang Yuguo, who shall file an arbitration with MAANSHAN Arbitration Commission.
and Nanchang Construction Engineering Group Co., Ltd., of course, the arbitration clause shall apply.
“fully perform the construction contract of the project signed between the group company and China 17th Metallurgical Group Co., Ltd.
Compared with Nanchang Construction Engineering Group Co., Ltd., China 17th Metallurgical Construction Group Co., Ltd.
The presumption of the court of first instance is groundless in law.
Of course, Suzhou intermediate people’s court has jurisdiction.
as the project employer.
Because Jiang Yuguo and China 17th Metallurgical Group Co., Ltd.
on the way to resolve disputes..
in accordance with Article 26 of the interpretation.
Jiang Yuguo took the employer, subcontractor and illegal subcontractor as defendants to the court where the project is located, which is in line with the law.
Therefore, Jiang Yuguo has no right to initiate arbitration with MAANSHAN Arbitration Commission.
Compared with Jiang Yuguo, Nanchang Construction Engineering Group Co., Ltd.
have no arbitration clause, Jiang Yuguo can only file a lawsuit to the court where the project is located in accordance with the relevant provisions of the civil procedure law.
In conclusion, whether Suzhou intermediate people’s court has jurisdiction over this case depends on the litigants.
The specific reasons are as follows: first, according to the contract signed between the parties in this case and the legal relationship between the parties as stipulated by law, it is sufficient to identify Sixian MCC Construction Investment Co., Ltd.
